MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cabin pressure aboard commercial aircraft and non‐arteritic ischemic optic neuropathy

2017· article· en· W2753420967 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Nazarali, H. Liu, Misha F. Syed, Anna Ter‐Zakarian, Rustum Karanjia, Alfredo A. Sadun

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To evaluate variations in pressurization of commercial aircraft at cruising altitude. Most aircraft are pressurized between 6,000 and 8,000 feet (ft.), depending on the type of aircraft and composite materials of the fuselage. Patients with NAION may note transient obscurations of vision in concert with low partial pressures of oxygen associated with high altitude. Methods Altimeters were used to measure the altitude and cabin pressure at cruising altitude aboard 83 commercial aircraft, including 38 narrow‐body and 45 wide‐body planes. Single‐aisle aircraft with a fuselage width of 10‐13 ft. were considered narrow‐body, while twin‐aisle aircraft with a fuselage width of 16‐20 ft. were qualified as wide‐body. There were six types of narrow‐body and seven types of wide‐body aircraft studied. Results The mean cabin pressure among all flights was 6,200 ± 970 ft. Narrow‐body aircraft had a significantly greater mean cabin pressure of 6,634 ± 965 ft. compared to wide‐body aircraft with a mean cabin pressure of 5,834 ± 818 ft. (p < 0.001). With respect to service date, newer generation aircraft had a mean cabin pressure of 5,999 ± 949 ft., which was lower than the mean cabin pressure of older aircraft 6,462 ± 946 ft. (p = 0.03). Conclusions Innovation in flight design has offered the ability for aircraft to fly at greater altitudes, while maintaining lower cabin pressures. Those at high risk of hypoxia induced complications such as NAION may consider aircraft type when air travel is required. Although all flights studied maintained pressurization below suggested United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines, the possibility for oxygen desaturation remains with current flight practices, especially in those at high risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OphthalmologicaSame topicOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesFrench-language works237,207